TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 1809X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he course of examination were liable for confiscation inasmuch as the provisions of clauses (d) and (m) of Section 111 are attracted. However, on perusal of the statement recorded by the department from the Authorized Representative of the high seas seller, it is found that the said person had specifically stated that the goods were supplied other than the goods which were ordered for and that due to inadvertence, the overseas supplier had supplied the said goods to the Indian buyer, instead of the buyer located in Jordan, who placed the purchase order for buying the said goods. The department has not brought on any evidence to prove that the appellant had prior knowledge of such misdeclared goods. Thus, under the circumstances of the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 95,075/-. The appellant had purchased the said goods from M/s. Sunil Hi Tech Engineers Ltd. on high sea sales basis. During the course of examination, the goods were found to be old and used 256 MB DDR RAM of various brands. Since, the Foreign Trade Policy, 2009-2014 restricts importation of second-hand goods, the department proceeded against the appellant for confiscation of the said imported goods and for imposition of penalty. The matter was adjudicated vide order dated 30-12-2013, wherein the original authority had confiscated the imported goods under Section 111(d) and Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 with the option to the appellant to redeem the said goods for the purpose of export on payment of redemption fine of ₹ 35,0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earned AR appearing for the Revenue reiterated the findings recorded in the impugned order. He further submitted that since the goods were misdeclared in the Bill of Entry and old and used DDR RAMs are specifically prohibited for import under paragraph 2.17 read with the Hazardous Waste (Management, Handling and Transboundary) Rules, 2008, the offending goods are appropriately liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) and (m) ibid and the appellant is exposed to the penal consequences provided under the statute. 4. Heard both sides and perused the records. 5. The provisions regarding confiscation of improperly imported goods, etc., are contained in Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962. Clause (d) in the said section provides that a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... edemption fine imposed on the appellant is in the higher side, which can be reduced in the interest of justice. 6. Section 112(a) ibid mandates imposition of penalty for improper importation of goods. It has been mandated that any person who, in relation to any goods, does or omit to do any act which act or omission would render such goods liable to confiscation under Section 111, or abets the doing or omission of such an act, shall be liable for penalty. In this case, the department had not brought on any iota of evidence to prove that the appellant had in fact, fulfilled the requirements contained in Section 111(a) ibid, justifying imposition of penalty on it. On the contrary, I find that due to wrong notion, the overseas supplier had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
